News
Tesla’s Battery strategy is in preparation for two of its most anticipated vehicles
Tesla has continued to attempt to improve its battery packs and cells despite being the industry leader in EV battery tech. Interestingly enough, the electric car company located in Silicon Valley has had some of the best vehicles in terms of EV range in the past ten years. While other car companies were struggling to equip their attempts at electric cars with 100 miles of usable range, Tesla was and has been pushing the envelope since the original Roadster in 2008.
But even though the company has facilitated several vehicles in its fleet to have over 300 miles of range, and one with over 400 miles, it hasn’t been enough to let Tesla’s battery engineers rest. Even though the Model S Long Range Plus configuration packs 402 miles of electric range, which is plenty for most drivers, Tesla has several cars in the works that pack considerably more range than that. These are also not your “run of the mill” EVs, either. They are the Tri-Motor Cybertruck and the next-gen Roadster.
Batteries are what drive an EV to be all that it can be. They are responsible for the range and the performance of the car, along with the motors and engineering of the chassis and body. However, battery tech is ultimately what decides if a vehicle is going to be a successful electric car or just another one to add to the list of underperforming automobiles.
The key to building a great electric car, like anything else, is starting at the foundation. When you want to make a great pizza, you start with great dough. When you want to make a great EV, you start with the battery cells.
The problem with batteries is that there are no two cells that are the same when the materials that are used within are concerned. Not only that, but sometimes the elements that make some batteries stable and help with energy density are controversial. This is the case with cobalt.
But before I go into a spiel about Tesla’s use of cobalt and how the company responsibly sources it, let’s stay on topic.
Tesla’s battery teams in Canada, led by Jeff Dahn at Dalhousie University, released a new paper this week that indicated an electrolyte solution could contribute to increased battery energy density, and could lead to an extended lifespan.
This is a preview from our weekly newsletter. Each week I go ‘Beyond the News’ and handcraft a special edition that includes my thoughts on the biggest stories, why it matters, and how it could impact the future.
A big thanks to our long-time supporters and new subscribers! Thank you.
The solution would be used to combat the effects of degradation, and would ultimately lead to a longer life span and increased energy density. Enter the Tri-Motor Cybertruck and Roadster.
Both of these cars have range ratings that are well above the Model S Long Range Plus variant. The Cybertruck’s Tri-Motor will have 500+ miles of range, and the Roadster will have 620 miles.
However, Tesla’s current cells are not capable of holding this amount of range. If the batteries are not capable of holding excessive amounts of energy density, they will not perform in the fashion that they were intended. Therefore, Tesla has to continue developing its cells to promote longer-range driving and a long lifespan.
Starting with the Cybertruck, which has an estimated range of “500+ miles,” according to Tesla’s website. Currently, Tesla does not have a battery pack released that is capable of that kind of range, so the batteries must improve. The Tri-Motor setup will certainly help with the towing capacity and acceleration. Still, the battery pack within the Cybertruck has to work efficiently to not only supply power to those motors, but it also has to maintain energy so it can keep range at a reasonable level.
With the Roadster, things are slightly different. This car will (more than likely) not be towing things or have excessive amounts of cargo in the back, so there isn’t as much involved with maintaining range through laborious work. However, it is one of the fastest cars ever made, and Elon Musk has said in the past that the range of the Roadster will be over 1,000 kilometers or 621 miles.
Ultimately, the development of Tesla’s cells has to continue to improve. Obviously, the battery packs for both of the vehicles that were talked about in this article will have battery packs that are larger than the 100 kWh packs that Tesla puts in the Performance variants of the Model S and Model X. But there is a chance that Tesla equips the Cybertruck and Roadster with smaller, more energy-dense batteries like the 2170 cells that are used in the Model 3 and Model Y.
Lucid’s reveal of the 517-mile range that their new EV, the Air, has, certainly must have lit a fire under the rear-ends of Tesla’s battery engineers. Tesla has had a reputation of being the EV company with the best range, and now that Lucid “technically” has the title for that, even though the car isn’t in production, Tesla will likely be gearing up for a takeback of that label.
Tesla’s battery strategy from here on out will be interesting considering other auto companies have proven they are capable of competing in terms of EV range. There is still the fact that Tesla is actually producing these cars on a massive scale and we know that the company’s cars can perform, we don’t know this about the other vehicles yet.
Please consider Subscribing and joining me next week as I go ‘Beyond the News’
Investor's Corner
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
New drone footage shows Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory steel frame nearing completion at Giga Texas.
Tesla’s dedicated Optimus factory at Gigafactory Texas is closing in on a finished steel frame, according to drone footage posted Thursday afternoon by longtime site observer Joe Tegtmeyer. In the video, Tegtmeyer said structural steel assembly is now about five column grids away from reaching the building’s north perimeter beam, putting the primary skeleton in its final stretch roughly six months after Tesla broke ground on the North Campus site in late March.
The Giga Texas Optimus Factory latest update … construction keeps moving fast!
Steel assembly is now only about 5 column grids from the north perimeter beam. Concrete is going in on the three upper floors, rebar is still being laid for more pours, and footing / grade-beam work… pic.twitter.com/qvFPvwnYzW
— Joe Tegtmeyer 🚀 🤠🛸😎 (@JoeTegtmeyer) September 17, 2026
Tegtmeyer’s footage shows concrete already going in on three upper floors while crews continue laying rebar and pouring grade beam footings at ground level. That kind of parallel work, steel rising at one end of the site while concrete sets at the other, is a scheduling approach Tesla used at the original Giga Texas building and appears to be repeating here to save time before the plant’s targeted 2027 production start.
Teslarati has tracked the building’s progress since Tesla confirmed construction was officially underway in May, when the first steel structure went up on what was then bare, reclaimed land. The facility is part of a more than 5.2 million square foot expansion of Giga Texas’s North Campus that Tesla has said will eventually run nearly the length of the existing vehicle factory, over 4,000 feet, while sitting somewhat narrower. Musk has pegged the long term output target at 10 million Optimus units a year once the line is running at full capacity, a volume that would dwarf the one million unit pilot line Tesla is standing up separately at its Fremont, California factory.
Tesla Giga Texas to feature massive Optimus V4 production line
The Texas facility sits alongside another major buildout on the same campus. Terafab, the joint Tesla and SpaceX chip fabrication plant that will eventually supply the silicon running Optimus units in the field. Housing robot assembly and chip production on the same grounds is a deliberate supply chain decision, cutting down on the shipping and lead time that would otherwise sit between the two.
Tesla has not given an updated timeline beyond its previously stated goal of bringing high volume Optimus production online at the site in the summer of 2027. Fremont’s smaller pilot line began mass producing the current Gen 3 robot in January, with that plant expected to build tens of thousands of units this year primarily to generate the real world data Tesla needs to refine the robot’s software before Giga Texas ramps up. Six months of visible construction progress, tracked almost entirely through Tegtmeyer’s recurring drone flights, gives the clearest outside look yet at how seriously Tesla is treating that 2027 deadline.
Investor's Corner
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
Tesla and SpaceX sue a small Illinois firm after cease and desist letters over Terafab.
Tesla and SpaceX are asking a federal judge to rule that their planned Terafab chip factory does not infringe a small Illinois company’s trademark, a request that arrives only after months of quiet negotiation broke down this summer.
The dispute traces to May 18, when Tesla filed three U.S. trademark applications for “Terafab” and “Tesla Terafab,” covering semiconductor chips and related chip making services. TERA-print LLC, a nanotechnology company that has held a federal trademark for “Tera-Fab” since 2021, responded five days later with a cease and desist letter. According to the lawsuit, first reported by Reuters, TERA-print argued that Tesla and SpaceX’s use of “Terafab” would confuse consumers familiar with its own trademark, which covers a desktop photolithography printer sold to researchers for sensor and bioengineering work.
What stands out in the filing is the timing of TERA-print’s own paperwork. One day before sending that cease and desist letter, on May 22, TERA-print applied to expand its existing registration to cover semiconductor materials, silicon chips, nanoelectronic devices and AI design services, categories it had not previously claimed. Tesla and SpaceX call that filing opportunistic in their complaint, noting it arrived two months after Tesla’s public Terafab announcement and just days after Tesla’s own trademark applications went in.
Elon Musk launches TERAFAB: The $25B Tesla-SpaceXAI chip factory that will rewire the AI industry
By June 10, TERA-print was threatening to sue for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, the complaint states. Rather than wait to be sued, Tesla, SpaceX and SpaceXAI met with TERA-print six separate times between June and August trying to resolve the dispute directly. Those talks collapsed, and the companies filed for declaratory judgment this week in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asking a judge to find that “Terafab” does not infringe TERA-print’s mark before TERA-print can file a claim of its own.
TERA-print isn’t backing down. The company told PCMag it discussed a settlement with Tesla as recently as September 2 and feels misled by what it called Tesla’s professed interest in settling. Its CTO, Andrey Ivankin, said TERA-print holds a Defense Department contract to fabricate semiconductors and partially owns Mattiq Inc., an AI company built on TERA-print’s products, and that the company will vigorously defend its rights.
Tesla and SpaceX argue the overlap is superficial. Terafab is planned as a $16.8 billion complex spanning roughly 100 million square feet at the Grimes County site SpaceX confirmed last month, built to produce chips for Optimus robots, Tesla’s AI computing needs and SpaceX’s orbital data center ambitions, a scale and purpose the companies say no reasonable consumer would confuse with a tabletop lab printer. TERA-print’s product line has stayed focused on lithography tools for biological and sensor research since it registered its mark in 2021.
The trademark fight is the second legal dispute tied to the Terafab project in the past week, following a separate SpaceX suit aimed at keeping company records about the facility out of public view, as KBTX reported. Whether construction proceeds under the Terafab name now depends on a federal judge in Austin.
News
NHTSA just escalated its Tesla Cybercab investigation in a big way
NHTSA escalated its Cybercab audit into a sworn Special Order with a September 30 deadline.
Federal regulators have moved from asking Tesla questions about its Cybercab to demanding sworn answers. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a Special Order that requires a Tesla officer to sign an affidavit attesting to the completeness of the company’s responses, with a deadline of September 30.
The order builds on Audit Query AQ26002, which NHTSA opened on September 3, the same day Tesla began commercial Cybercab service in Austin. Teslarati covered that initial inquiry when it surfaced, noting the agency wanted to understand how Tesla certified a vehicle with no permanently attached steering wheel, pedals, or mirrors as compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. A Special Order is a different tool and converts a fact finding review into a legally enforceable demand, the same mechanism NHTSA used against Tesla in 2023 during its Autopilot investigation.
Several of the 21 requests target a specific gap in Cybercab’s design. One asks whether Tesla used temporarily attached human controls at any point to help certify the vehicle, and if so, which standards depended on that equipment being present. Another quotes an existing rule directly: “The service brakes shall be activated by means of a foot control.” Cybercab has no foot pedal. NHTSA wants a detailed explanation of how the vehicle satisfies that requirement, and how it complies without the kind of exemption granted to Zoox in July under Part 555, the regulatory pathway built for steering wheel free vehicles.
The order does not claim Cybercab is unsafe or that Tesla broke a rule. It requires Tesla to explain, under oath, the reasoning behind decisions the company already made when it self-certified the vehicle. That distinction matters, but so does the exposure. Motor1’s reporting, summarized here, put potential civil penalty exposure as high as $139 million if NHTSA later finds the certification was flawed, on top of whatever criminal risk comes with a false sworn statement.
Tesla has not said publicly how it plans to respond. Cybercab is still carrying passengers in Austin through the Robotaxi app while the September 30 deadline approaches, and the company has continued expanding the vehicle’s footprint even as the regulatory question remains open. The Special Order does not pause any of that and just sets a date by which Tesla has to put its certification logic on the record, with a company officer’s name attached to it.
New drone video shows Tesla’s Optimus Factory reaching a turning point
Tesla and SpaceX take “Terafab” Trademark fight to Federal Court
